As Western Europe has already found to its cost, local Muslim leaders have a habit, once they feel strong enough, of making demands of the most intolerant kind. Sometimes it will be calls for censorship of anything "offensive" to Islam. Sometimes it will be demands for sexual segregation in schools and swimming pools. The script is becoming a very familiar one. And those who make such demands are of course usually quite careful to avoid any association with violence. They merely hint that, if their demands are not taken seriously, there just might be a teeny smidgeon of violence from some other unnamed quarter …

As for the gorgeous mosaic of religious pluralism, it's easy enough to find mosque Web sites and DVDs that peddle the most disgusting attacks on Jews, Hindus, Christians, unbelievers, and other Muslims—to say nothing of insane diatribes about women and homosexuals. This is why the fake term Islamophobia is so dangerous: It insinuates that any reservations about Islam must ipso facto be "phobic." A phobia is an irrational fear or dislike. Islamic preaching very often manifests precisely this feature, which is why suspicion of it is by no means irrational.

In this view, it's good to frame the debate in terms of tolerance, but don't wimp out halfway through. Keep going, and insist on tolerance all around. I think that's a better position than meeting intolerance with intolerance. It's more enlightened, it puts us on the path to liberty, and it requires quite a bit more courage.

218 comments:

I had someone ask me a very good question, and since they aren't very smart, I assume they read it somewhere on the web....

"Will you explain the difference to me between the Confederate Battle Flag in Alabama and the Mosque?"

I mean, I get it: both are "free speech" issues, though one was "government sponsored" so that is different. But take the flag off the capital and put it on the back of your pickup truck and it's still offensive and is roundly condemned in the MSM.

It's a good thought experiment. I might add in the Boy Scouts, the Westboro Church, and a few other roundly-condemned private organizations like that.

Last night buried deep in another thread, I had a great idea, with updates:

The area continues to grow where the presence of Muslims is considered by conservatives too offensive to allow to pursue their religious freedom. Numerous Muslim projects are being opposed around the country.

We should demand, now, that Republicans map out their Muslim Exclusion Zone.

That way, when they keep trying to grow the Republican's Muslim Exclusion zone, we'll have a record and something to hold them to. As it stands now, Muslims must only be excluded where they say so, and that is growing.

You guys could crowd source this in Google maps, and then call it Muslim Exclusion Map Enabled (MEME). Then, property owners won't have to ask their local Republican Party if they can sell property to Muslims and the investment environment will be more stable in the face of the Muslim(phobe) threat.

And Ann Althouse can proudly point to the role her site played in the propagation of the MEME.

"Will you explain the difference to me between the Confederate Battle Flag in Alabama and the Mosque?"

Sure. One represents a Secessionist Government that tried to break away from the Union 149 years ago and the other reprsents a religion whose adhrents murdered 3000 people 9 years ago and continue to plot additional attacks to this day.

I would listen more to Hitch than Althouse on this one. The only details I get on these mosque builders is vague pablum from the NYT. That alone makes me suspicious. The term "moderate" is hopelessly vague and always relative.

ShoutingT: This thing you've been doing, where you just shout "bigot" over and over again, I get where you're going, and you're not wrong there, but for goodness sake, man, it is getting bloody tiresome.

Could I ask you to please give it a rest? If you want to offer some new arguments, or take down some old ones, I'm game, but don't be boring.

In 2009 Rauf refused to sign a Freedom Pledge to protect former Muslims from death sentences sought by Shariah interpretations for Muslim apostates. Rauf is also President of the ASMA society, which is the Shariah Index Project.

Chase said: AlphaLiberal is intelligent, and has demonstrated such numerous times.

You know, that's what bugs me so much about AL. He doesn't come across as stupid, and I think that, based on his writing, that he truely does have the intellectual capability to engage in rational debate on these subjects.

He simply refuses to do so, and instead deflects and lies about the other side's arguments in some effort to claim to have dismantled them and avoids any rational debate. I have tried on several occassions to politely and intellectually engage him; I am genuinely interested in debating in good faith and exploring the roots of actual differences in opinions and values, but he refuses to do so. It's frustrating, and makes me pessimistic about the ability of any people who are dissimilar in opinion to find any common ground.

ShoutingT: This thing you've been doing, where you just shout "bigot" over and over again, I get where you're going, and you're not wrong there, but for goodness sake, man, it is getting bloody tiresome.

You're right, it is bloody tiresome.

But the Great Bigot Hunt is even more tiresome.

The kids have been indoctrinated fiercely in this the Bigot Hunting religion.

The Bigot Mania has metastasized into a monster.

Other than ridiculing the brain dead indoctrinated kids whenever they start reciting the Bigot Hunter's Pledge, what is there to do to stop the spread of this disease?

Why must liberals insist on calling these sorts of Muslims "moderate." It only damns their argument that the extremists don't speak for the rest of them. If this guy is "moderate," then I want nothing to do with "moderate Muslims."

I don't believe that all Muslims are objectionably extreme. Part and parcel with that is that I don't believe that all Muslims are like this guy.

If I believed that most Muslims were like the Iman, I would want nothing to do with Muslims, moderate or otherwise.

Lyssa: ShoutingT: This thing you've been doing, where you just shout "bigot" over and over again, I get where you're going, and you're not wrong there, but for goodness sake, man, it is getting bloody tiresome.

Could I ask you to please give it a rest? If you want to offer some new arguments, or take down some old ones, I'm game, but don't be boring.

Interesting. You take the energy to post that ShoutingTomas's mockery of Alpha's false accusations of bigotry are "boring".

But nothing about Alpha's false accusations. They dont bore you enough to comment.

Do we have yet another candidate here for Alpha's Cadre of Sock Puppets?

The Europeans fought numerous lengthy wars against Muslims over several centuries to keep them from overrunning Europe. Remember that it was only as recently as 1492 that the Spanish Reconquist was completed, pushing the Muslims out of Spain, and that Muslim armies were at the gates of Vienna as recently as 1683.

And yet, after World War II, the Europeans suddenly changed their tack and welcomed Muslims into their midst. In Britain and France, these Muslims were citizens who came from their former imperial possessions. In Germany and other nations, they were "guest workers," brought in to do the hard manual labor that the locals didn't want to do.

None of the Europeans worried about why their ancestors had spent so much time, effort and blood to keep the Muslims at bay. They had forgotten their own history. And now they are living with the result: Large populations of unassimilable Muslim immigrants whose values are totally at odds those of their bourgeois European neighbors.

The Europeans are appalled by the "honor" killings, female genital mutilation, and general misogynistic treatment of women by Muslims. The Muslims are appalled by what they view as degenerate behavior of various sorts: Homosexuality, alcohol and drug use, and the liberated status of women in the West.

Anyone with a lick of sense would have said, "Hey, wait a minute! Why do we want people coming here whose beliefs are completely at odds with ours?" Nobody asked that question, because it would have been construed as "intolerant." And everyone knows that there's nothing worse in the whole wide world than being intolerant (unless you are being intolerant of Americans, especially white male Republican Christian Americans; then it's okay).

I'm not sure that European Experiences would translate seamlessly to the US -- I think it's a lot easier to assimilate into the culture here -- but Hitchens raises excellent points.

This is why I think the Gay Bar right next to the GZM is such an excellent idea.

I did see a quote attributed to Imam Rauf the other day that I appreciated, namely that ideas in the US Constitution are a lot closer to true Islamism than any radical's notion of Islam. Not sure if he really meant it, but...

"In this view, it's good to frame the debate in terms of tolerance, but don't wimp out halfway through. Keep going, and insist on tolerance all around. I think that's a better position than meeting intolerance with intolerance. It's more enlightened, it puts us on the path to liberty, and it requires quite a bit more courage."

"Don't wimp out halfway through. Keep going, and insist on tolerance all around." In other words, become intolerant about tolerance.

"I think that's a better position than meeting intolerance with intolerance." No, it's the same thing.

"It's more enlightened,..." My god, woman, don't try me.

"it puts us on the path to liberty,..." Oh, you're 'on a path', alright,,.

"Will you explain the difference to me between the Confederate Battle Flag in Alabama and the Mosque?"

The Confederate flag is part of history. It represents a vanquished ideology. Maybe it offends some, but for the most part it's message is impotent in the age of this "post-racial" POTUS (putative). Islam on the otherhand is a worldwide threat to liberty, as it has already proven. One must take pause at the Koran's call to kill "infidels", and the examples of it acting on that command. The Koranic concept of Lying (Taquiyya) for the benefit of Islam shows us that they cannot be trusted, no matter what they say. DUH!

"Will you explain the difference to me between the Confederate Battle Flag in Alabama and the Mosque?"

If some, I don't know, Southern heritage group killed a bunch of people in AL in fairly recent memory, and then a different Southern heritage group, who condemed violence but also said that the actions of the first group were a result of America's policies towards them and talked about wanting to make America more "confederacy compliant" (or something*), wanted to put up a confederate flag not exactly on the spot where all the people were killed, but close enough that their weapons had landed there, you're damn right that I would object. They would have a right to do it, and I'd stand up for that (as I do here), but I'd still call them big asses and hope they wouldn't.

And I'll bet that Alpha Lib would not call me a hater for it, either.

- Lyssa

* (see how ridiculous the analogies have to get to get anywhere near the present situation with anything but Islam?)

It is a dilemma whether to act nice to Muslim murderers of infidel western civilization, and become dead anyway, or to be intolerant of them and to live as a free Christian or Jew. Hmmm. The left seems to have already thrown its support to Muslim murderers since it also is at war with the institutions of western civilization.

Shouting Thomas wrote:And, who should show up but the evil, odious OmegaLiberal, our terrorist in training.

If you grew up during the 60s and knew a number of the Weathermen (Like Mark Rudd), the tactics and rhetoric of OmegaLiberal are strikingly familiar.

The sixties were a bit before my time, but it is absolutely true. These are the exact same tactics, and the new lefty radicals are still arguing the same old crap. It's all (or the majority of it is) attacks on capitalism from a socialist perspective. Even if the kids of today don't even realize that they are fighting for socialism it's what they're doing. If you go to any large anti war rally odds are its put together by some socialist front group. Alinksy is socialist, Black Liberation Theology at it's core is socialist, Shirley Sherrod wasn't a racist, but she sure was a socialist. Michael Moore sure as hell is socialist even though he's a multimillionaire. Half of hollywood is outright socialist despite being lords of the manor as it were. You'd think they'd get the memo about socialism not working, you'd think that considering how well they're doing under capitalism they might have a bit of gratitude and you'd think that after 50 years (counting from the 60s on though you could obviously go back much further) they might come up with new tactics and/or ideas. The counterculture is pretty boring and banal. It's too bad though that they have such loud screechy voices and never shut up, so you have to keep arguing the same things over and over with them.But lefties, if you think you are spouting some original arguments, nearly EVERYTHING you are arguing is just warmed over socialism be it african american studies or even environmentalism. And socialism has been proven to be a bankrupt system that has never worked. So why not grow up?

lyssalovelyredhead said...Why must liberals insist on calling these sorts of Muslims "moderate."

Because Park-51 imam Feisal Abdul-Rauf is not [openly] walking around with his AK-47. At least not yet.

There's also a confluence of goals, thus the liberal meaning of Muslim moderate.

Shortly after 9/11, I came to realize that it would take more than 3,000 bodies to impress the American Left. Now I put the minimum at 3,000,000 - three million American deaths to pause the liberal insanity. But the number to eliminate such insanity will likely require upwards of thirty million.

Keep going, and insist on tolerance all around. I think that's a better position than meeting intolerance with intolerance. It's more enlightened, it puts us on the path to liberty, and it requires quite a bit more courage.

You might as well try to tame a wolverine and expect it to become a loving lap pet as to expect tolerance and enlightenment from Islam.

Idealsim and unrealistic thoughts are going to get us all killed.

Althouse can go ahead and play with her wolverine pet. I'm not interested.

I'm not sure that European Experiences would translate seamlessly to the US -- I think it's a lot easier to assimilate into the culture here

I'm not so sure I agree with that. It used to be easier to assimilate because it was expected, especially from subsequent generations. The problem I see now is encouragement on the part of maintaining one's ethnic identity at the expense of assimilating into the broader American society. Perfect example is Press 1 for English or 2 for Spanish. If we are making it that easy NOT to learn the language of the land, why bother with the rest of it?

Assimilation means you want to become part of the broader culture but if you don't respect it (hell look at what they teach about America) and are only here for the economic opportunity then its pretty much a lost cause IMO.

I was at a Colts game years ago when the Boy Scouts were part of the half time show and the group in front of me booed them. I asked why in the hell they were booing the Boy Scouts and this 20 something sneered at me and said it was because they don't allow gays to be scouts or scoutleaders.

Keep going, and insist on tolerance all around. I think that's a better position than meeting intolerance with intolerance.

That doesn't really make sense. If you insist on tolerance all around then what happens if someone is intolerant. Wouldn't you have to be intolerant of intolerance in order to insist that tolerance be the standard social interaction? Otherwise you are not really insisting on tolerance, you are simply acquiescing to intolerance.

Does anyone here ever think about the so-called "spiritual warfare" that goes on around us? Professor? Traditional Guy? Does the concept of Islam planting it's flag escape you as you ponder the meaning of ours?

This certainly isn't a new, or even a very interesting point (sorry Lyssa), but it really is hitting me again how so much political debate in our era really is less about stances or causes or ideologies, and much more about being reactionary against people who are not in our club.

There are ideological liberals and there are ideological conservatives, to be sure, but so much of the debates around aren't at all about pursuing some kind of consistent philosophy. They are rhetorical games, based on rhetorical stances, based on trying to beat and undermine the other identified team.

The curious cry for "tolerance!" is not applied in political situations, leading to outrageous demonization of "opponents". It also leads to curious stances on issues. The Islamic world is, like it or not, one of the most consistently repressive areas of the world, in stark contrast to the supposed actual values of so many liberals. But the pursuit of freedom and liberal values takes a backseat to seeking to embarrass or crush domestic political rivals.

The oft discussed topic of feminism around here fits the same pattern. It's not consistent ideology, it's reactionary identity formation.

I think that's why I respect Feingold (from what I know of him). I disagree with him, but he's consistently liberal.

That makes discussions so entirely difficult, and it also is how so much of both liberalism and conservatives can be childishly manipulated by real ideologies who are happy to use the pawns and empty thinkers in real grabs for influence.

Liberals could care less about Islam, or New York real estate, or whatever. But a chance to stab the perceived stance of middle America? Absolutely. That's why rational discussion becomes impossible. Because it's not really a discussion about the topic at hand. It's a rhetorical war that acknowledges no rules and does not seek common ground, but rather the destruction of the foe and their hearts eaten up.

This happens on both sides, to be sure, but this is the curious example now.

This has always been my central theme when it relates to anything having to do with this clash of cultures we're all witness to and a part of. It's possible I'm more sensitive to it because I have European (German) in-laws, but I believe it to be a simple case of possessing minimal observation skills.

The problem is that Sharia requirements are, in the worst cases, completely incompatible with our culture. THIS is the central point that needs to be addressed.

And, make no mistake, it will not be (and hasn't been so in Europe) a question of right or wrong, rights or liberties. It will be purely about political will and political power. Once the minority Sharia adherents believe that either they have sufficient political power to make demands, or that the majority non-Sharia adherents lack the will to oppose them (this is very crucial) they will start making those demands.

I believe that annoyingly American trait of individualism will be a bulwark against this rising tide, but that does not mean there won't be the aforementioned clash and it certainly doesn't mean it will be pretty.

Speaking of "stupid or evil", what are we to make of "Crazy Daisy" Rauf? If a woman propagandizes/agitates/advocates on behalf of Sharia, does that make her akin to an African tribesman selling other Africans to slave traders?

Couple things: first, I think the Confederate flag question may have started with Ace of Spades last week.

Second, on tolerance: I think much of the confusion about tolerance comes from thinking that tolerance is a virtue and therefore is laudable whenever practiced. But it isn't. Tolerance is an attitude, and it's proper or improper depending on what's being tolerated. As such, it has natural limits because it is the product of judgment, not a substitute for it. We have no obligation to tolerate evil. Indeed, we have no obligation to tolerate anything except in the service of another virtue we pursue.

Also, tolerance entails dissent. You only tolerate things you disagree with; if you agreed with them, it's acceptance, not tolerance. Therefore, it's always struck me as absurd that people demand that no one voice disagreement in the name of tolerance. By and large, tolerance isn't about pretending to agree; it's about voicing disagreement but not taking action to prevent something. When people start clamoring for silence in the name of tolerance, that tells me they aren't looking for tolerance, they're looking for surrender. Pardon me for declining to surrender to bullies.

Interrogate Islam. If it were a political party rather than a religion, it would be widely condemned and despised for its imperialism, intolerance, illiberalism, hatred of homosexuals, viciousness, and archaic ethos.

Since it is a religion that explicitly seeks political power, it should be evaluated and treated as a political movement as well as a religion.

The way Ann framed the post makes you wonder if the Moslems haven't read Uncle Saul; their strategy is right out of the Lefty playbook. As Neal Boortz noted today, "Daisy (Khan, Mrs Imam Rauf) is pulling a page from American leftist politicians here. When your ideas are challenged and you really can't mount a logical or rational defense, start yelling 'hate.'".

It's also illustrative to remember the Moslems aren't 'infiltrating' Europe, as one commenter said. They were recruited to come there, much in the way Mexico recruited Americans to settle in Texas in the 1820s (and we know how that ended). The Euros thought they were the perfect source for cheap labor and the people who saw it as a bad idea, mostly Britain's Enoch Powell, were denounced worldwide as 'haters'.

Chase said...

This is why the fake term Islamophobia is so dangerous: It insinuates that any reservations about Islam must ipso facto be "phobic." A phobia is an irrational fear or dislike.

The exact same can be said for the fake term "homophobia". It is also a form of hatred used to shut down any debate or disagreement. The stuff of childish, immature or retarded minds.

This is how the Lefties have been killing dissent for 40 or 50 years. Nice to see people are finally seeing through it.

Ann Althouse said...

"Last night buried deep in another thread, I had a great idea, with updates.."

Thank you, Paddy O. It's something I've thought for a long time. I was pleased to find my original post on it (back when I actually wrote on my blog) back in January 2005 to see that I basically said the same thing way back then.

There's not much profit in trying to figure out whether it's better to tolerate the intolerable, or asking whether a refusal to tolerate the intolerable is an act of intolerance. All you do is tie yourself up in a semantic mess.

Hitchens is at his best when he lambasts those who won't see what's right in front of them. He sees a nascent civilizational conflict playing out, based on what some "local Muslim leaders" demand and how the demands escalate, with an objective of Sharia-for-all. He says that it's hardly irrational to fear, and oppose, such tendencies even if they are only at the stage of scattered demands. But Hitchens also knows full well that Islam comes in many different versions, and that 'civilizational conflict' is only a part, probably a small part, of the story of how the Western and Muslim worlds are interacting in an ever-shrinking globe.

The usual Western response to these challenges is to draw a public/private line -- what you believe and how you live in your private life is your business, but what you say and how you act in the public sphere is everyone's business (including, occasionally, the Government's). The line is sometimes fuzzy, but it's a line nonetheless. That may mean, for example, that's it's your business if you want to wear a burqa at home or when carrying out private business, but it's not OK when testifying in court, trying to board a plane or in other interactions with public authority. The Park 51 controversy shows that, sometimes, people can't agree which side of the public/private divide a particular matter falls. Folks pushing the "bigot/intolerance" line say that it's purely private conduct, and thus no one else's business. Critics pushing the "victory mosque" line see it as a highly public thumb-in-the-eye.

The public/private line is also the way American society has dealt with demands, like those by the "local Muslim leaders" Hitchens highlights, for acceptance of their mores. In NY, for instance, many Hasidic communities insist on a strict separate of the sexes. But they accomplished that goal by setting up their own parallel society with its own institutions -- schools, councils and even separately incorporated towns (e.g. Kiryas Joel). Earlier, Shakers, the Mormoms and many other groups did the same, some of whom adapted and flourished and other that didn't and died out.

There will be lots of friction along the way as the melding of increasingly large groups of Muslims into American society plays itself out. Neither side will be the same after as before -- that's the American way, after all, and it's how American society absorbed so many other groups.

Hitchens is surely right that hurling meaningless charges built on a simplistic tolerance/intolerance distinction is a way of refusing to see what's in front of you. It's a trend (Ann's other theme-of-the-day) but not one likely to lead anywhere.

There is no Confederate flag flying over the state capitol in Montgomery.

Not NOW.

Tolerance is something you do for those things that you might find annoying, distasteful, strange, etc, but that don't harm you or seriously impede your ability to live your life.

Tolerance for harmful things or things that harm others is a false virtue and one that has led us into many many violent wars. World War II and the tolerance for the rising evil of Nazism is a recent example.

Are we NEVER going to learn from history?.

Are we NEVER going to rid ourselves of these suicidal notions that everything is deserving of tolerance?

HT: I was going to let it slide, but to most people the south is the south and Alabama and South Carolina are as interchangeable as mild cheddars. But in the south, you know, everybody is pretty much a racist hillbilly redneck truck driving confederate battle flag waving gun owning church going bigot. Except for the black people, of course, who are invisible voiceless and oppressed.

I am in the South, and people here were/are talking about the Confederate flag like there is some kind of battle roiling. There's not. It's done. It's over. I'm not gonna comment on the rightness or wrongness or in betweeness of it all. I just wanted to say that for accuracy's sake.

I suppose it's more stinging or something since I am here but I wish people would not foist non existent stuff on the state. We have enough of our own problems.

Ann - I love this pie-in-the-sky amorphous argument. "Insist on tolerance all around." There are a few problems with your ideal scenario.

Hitchens lays out a set of facts much deeper than your "insist on tolerance" can handle. Muslims have a 2-tiered system to get around your ideal scenario.

There are the peaceful non-interveners and the radicals. While they do not work together, per se, they do feed off of each other. They very much support each other actions.

Politicians, MSM, and others are quick to proclaim the peaceful non-interveners as peaceful and good. However, many do harbor feelings of support for their radical brethren. They are not even secret about it. Very few will truly denounce the horrible actions of the radicals. Instead they justify it and use it as political ammunition.

Ann, much of the American populace is onto this thinly veiled charade. The political correctness does not resonate with many Americans because they know what you and others refuse to say. Many, if not most, Muslims are intolerant. For the most part it is NOT a peaceful religion.

Much of the arguments here are excellent, and Ann hit the main point that Hitch so clearly laid out in his article - tolerance is a two way street, not a free pass for one group to claim "rights" that shut down others.

I want to illustrate that similar arguments go on in the arab world - and that claiming that the problem is all on "our side" is pure bunk. If you think that the argument for dialog and understanding is only something that "we" have to get - read the following article that was in the Arab News in Saudi Arabia yesterday.

I just want to point out that the same people that make the claims in the story said similar things about TV, the internet & mobile phones - until the realized that everyone else was using them because they were useful.

But the article clearly shows that some of the "leading lights" on the other side of this argument have a way to go to recognize that "Others" have rights too. (BTW - the word "Kafir" is a highly loaded pejorative too, translating it as "infidel" is pretty weak tea.)

http://arabnews.com/saudiarabia/article110242.ece

SCHOLAR LAUNCHES SCATHING ATTACK ON ‘MODERNISTS’

By ARAB NEWSPublished: Aug 22, 2010 23:45 Updated: Aug 22, 2010 23:45

BAHA: An Islamic scholar has described Saudi intellectuals with modern views as heretics and followers of the West.

Ahmad bin Abdullah Al-Ammari, former dean of the faculty of the Holy Qur’an at the Madinah Islamic University, said in a lecture at the Baha Literary Club last week that a lot of people were seduced by Western ideals, Al-Madinah daily reported.

Al-Ammari did not spare “the modernists” in his sweeping attack, describing them as “the tails of the intellectuals in the Arab world.”

Al-Ammari began his speech by saying that the title of the lecture, “We and the Others…Our Islam is Our Identity,” was chosen deliberately.

He added that it was a reaction to the theme of a previous event organized by the club focusing on cultural identity in a changing world.

He also said the lecture aimed to describe the difference between Muslims, the “We” in the title, and the “Others,” who he described as kafirs (infidels).

He claimed the two groups could never come together as they were incompatible.

The differences between them did not only include a divergence of views, but the gulf between them was as wide as the difference between thesis and antithesis, he said.

He also cited several verses from the Holy Qur’an and the Hadith to support his arguments.

“Our identity is based on the religion of Islam that has been chosen for us by Almighty Allah. It is also steeped in our history,” he said.

“That is why I wonder how our own people can throw away their identity and behave like birds migrating from one place to another, never finding a permanent abode.” He added that missionaries and colonialists have been trying to destabilize the Islamic world through various campaigns.

They never succeeded in their attempts, he said, claiming that they devised another way to destroy Islam by inviting student delegations to the West. He claimed that a large number of the young people studying abroad are influenced by Western ideals.

Al-Ammari attributed the erosion of identity in the Arab world to the weakness of authority and a lack of real knowledge. The situation is further exacerbated by the presence of hypocrites in society who always support the enemies of Islam, he said.

Much of the arguments here are excellent, and Ann hit the main point that Hitch so clearly laid out in his article - tolerance is a two way street, not a free pass for one group to claim "rights" that shut down others.

I want to illustrate that similar arguments go on in the arab world - and that claiming that the problem is all on "our side" is pure bunk. If you think that the argument for dialog and understanding is only something that "we" have to get - read excerpts from an article that was in the Arab News in Saudi Arabia yesterday.

I just want to point out that the same people that make the claims in the story said similar things about TV, the internet & mobile phones - until the realized that everyone else was using them because they were useful.

But the article clearly shows that some of the "leading lights" on the other side of this argument have a way to go to recognize that "Others" have rights too. (BTW - the word "Kafir" is a highly loaded pejorative too, translating it as "infidel" is pretty weak tea.)

http://arabnews.com/saudiarabia/article110242.ece

SCHOLAR LAUNCHES SCATHING ATTACK ON ‘MODERNISTS’

By ARAB NEWSPublished: Aug 22, 2010 23:45 Updated: Aug 22, 2010 23:45

BAHA: An Islamic scholar has described Saudi intellectuals with modern views as heretics and followers of the West.

Ahmad bin Abdullah Al-Ammari, former dean of the faculty of the Holy Qur’an at the Madinah Islamic University, said in a lecture at the Baha Literary Club last week that a lot of people were seduced by Western ideals, Al-Madinah daily reported.

Al-Ammari did not spare “the modernists” in his sweeping attack, describing them as “the tails of the intellectuals in the Arab world.”

Al-Ammari began his speech by saying that the title of the lecture, “We and the Others…Our Islam is Our Identity,” was chosen deliberately.

He added that it was a reaction to the theme of a previous event organized by the club focusing on cultural identity in a changing world.

He also said the lecture aimed to describe the difference between Muslims, the “We” in the title, and the “Others,” who he described as kafirs (infidels).

He claimed the two groups could never come together as they were incompatible.

The differences between them did not only include a divergence of views, but the gulf between them was as wide as the difference between thesis and antithesis, he said.

“That is why I wonder how our own people can throw away their identity and behave like birds migrating from one place to another, never finding a permanent abode.” He added that missionaries and colonialists have been trying to destabilize the Islamic world through various campaigns.

They never succeeded in their attempts, he said, claiming that they devised another way to destroy Islam by inviting student delegations to the West. He claimed that a large number of the young people studying abroad are influenced by Western ideals.

Al-Ammari attributed the erosion of identity in the Arab world to the weakness of authority and a lack of real knowledge. The situation is further exacerbated by the presence of hypocrites in society who always support the enemies of Islam, he said.

Much of the arguments here are excellent, and Ann hit the main point that Hitch so clearly laid out in his article - tolerance is a two way street, not a free pass for one group to claim "rights" that shut down others.

I want to illustrate that similar arguments go on in the arab world - and that claiming that the problem is all on "our side" is pure bunk. If you think that the argument for dialog and understanding is only something that "we" have to get - read excerpts from an article that was in the Arab News in Saudi Arabia yesterday.

I just want to point out that the same people that make the claims in the story said similar things about TV, the internet & mobile phones - until the realized that everyone else was using them because they were useful.

But the article clearly shows that some of the "leading lights" on the other side of this argument have a way to go to recognize that "Others" have rights too. (BTW - the word "Kafir" is a highly loaded pejorative too, translating it as "infidel" is pretty weak tea.)

http://arabnews.com/saudiarabia/article110242.ece

SCHOLAR LAUNCHES SCATHING ATTACK ON ‘MODERNISTS’

By ARAB NEWSPublished: Aug 22, 2010 23:45 Updated: Aug 22, 2010 23:45

BAHA: An Islamic scholar has described Saudi intellectuals with modern views as heretics and followers of the West.

Ahmad bin Abdullah Al-Ammari, former dean of the faculty of the Holy Qur’an at the Madinah Islamic University, said in a lecture at the Baha Literary Club last week that a lot of people were seduced by Western ideals, Al-Madinah daily reported.

Al-Ammari did not spare “the modernists” in his sweeping attack, describing them as “the tails of the intellectuals in the Arab world.”

Al-Ammari began his speech by saying that the title of the lecture, “We and the Others…Our Islam is Our Identity,” was chosen deliberately.

He also said the lecture aimed to describe the difference between Muslims, the “We” in the title, and the “Others,” who he described as kafirs (infidels).

He claimed the two groups could never come together as they were incompatible.

The differences between them did not only include a divergence of views, but the gulf between them was as wide as the difference between thesis and antithesis, he said.

“That is why I wonder how our own people can throw away their identity and behave like birds migrating from one place to another, never finding a permanent abode.” He added that missionaries and colonialists have been trying to destabilize the Islamic world through various campaigns.

They never succeeded in their attempts, he said, claiming that they devised another way to destroy Islam by inviting student delegations to the West. He claimed that a large number of the young people studying abroad are influenced by Western ideals.

MMuch of the arguments here are excellent, and Ann hit the main point that Hitch so clearly laid out in his article - tolerance is a two way street, not a free pass for one group to claim "rights" that shut down others.

I want to illustrate that similar arguments go on in the arab world - and that claiming that the problem is all on "our side" is pure bunk. If you think that the argument for dialog and understanding is only something that "we" have to get - read excerpts from an article that was in the Arab News in Saudi Arabia yesterday.

The article clearly shows that some of the "leading lights" on the other side of this argument have a way to go to recognize that "Others" have rights too. (BTW - the word "Kafir" is a highly loaded pejorative too, translating it as "infidel" is pretty weak tea.)

http://arabnews.com/saudiarabia/article110242.ece

SCHOLAR LAUNCHES SCATHING ATTACK ON ‘MODERNISTS’

By ARAB NEWSPublished: Aug 22, 2010 23:45

BAHA: An Islamic scholar has described Saudi intellectuals with modern views as heretics and followers of the West.

Ahmad bin Abdullah Al-Ammari, former dean of the faculty of the Holy Qur’an at the Madinah Islamic University, said in a lecture at the Baha Literary Club last week that a lot of people were seduced by Western ideals, Al-Madinah daily reported.

Al-Ammari did not spare “the modernists” in his sweeping attack, describing them as “the tails of the intellectuals in the Arab world.”

Al-Ammari began his speech by saying that the title of the lecture, “We and the Others…Our Islam is Our Identity,” was chosen deliberately.

He also said the lecture aimed to describe the difference between Muslims, the “We” in the title, and the “Others,” who he described as kafirs (infidels).

He claimed the two groups could never come together as they were incompatible.

The differences between them did not only include a divergence of views, but the gulf between them was as wide as the difference between thesis and antithesis, he said.

“That is why I wonder how our own people can throw away their identity and behave like birds migrating from one place to another, never finding a permanent abode.” He added that missionaries and colonialists have been trying to destabilize the Islamic world through various campaigns.

They never succeeded in their attempts, he said, claiming that they devised another way to destroy Islam by inviting student delegations to the West. He claimed that a large number of the young people studying abroad are influenced by Western ideals.

Richard Dolan-- insightful comment that adds insight to the debate. Using reason to ensure a clear divide between private religious beliefs, and public actions is important, and one. And our society has a right to resist intolerant actions by calling attention to them--whether it be Jew baiting by some Muslims, or Muslim baiting by some fundamentalist--

Seriously, although broccoli is the world's wonder vegetable, and I enthusiastically encourage its consumption, I would appreciate it if you would steal a slightly different view of this comely comestible.

Tolerance really isn't the issue here, it's a matter of basic respect. You could see that with a simple thought experiment in which you reversed the situation -- Christian killers, backed by international Christian terrorists, perpetrate a mass slaughter of Muslims, obliterating one of Islams symbolic sites; and a few years later some other Christians propose to build a huge church near that site. My guess is that it wouldn't only be Muslims that would be offended, nor should it be. Reasonable and decent Christians themselves, not to mention people of any faith -- even atheists like Hitchens -- would find the proposal insensitive and inappropriate at best, and would be rightly suspicious of the motives of the project's backers. If "tolerance" is a consideration at all, it would be as tolerance for the sensitivities of those offended.

Insisting on tolerance all around is nothing new. Wasn't that exactly Gutfeld's point?

The courage required here is calling bullshit, which he did so well. It certainly revealed a moment of truth. There is no tolerance for truth, though. Because most people quite like their heads attached to their necks.

I'll go ahead and Godwin myself here. There are not a lot of parallels between the rise of Nazism and Islam. But using the tolerance argument, should we have tolerated the rise and spread of Nazism?

Of course not. Why? It spread due to militance and violence.

Only a common ignorance of the modern day and historical spread of Islam would fail to see the parallel here. The boundaries of the Islamic world is rife with violence. This is a fact.

In the areas just beyond the borders of the Islamic world, violence bubbles just beneath the surface and breaks out on startingly frequent occasions.

People cast off Islamic motivated violence as that of the extremists, however in the heart of the Islamic world, the extremists are in charge. Islamic extremists wield significant power.

Simply saying we must be more ideologically pure so we can show our enlightenment isn't a show of courage. Feeding the crocodile with the hopes that you're eaten last is not courage.

Standing up to an ideology that is a very real threat to your well-being is courageous. Within the confines of free speech and an open society, we can stand up by asking hard questions. By challenging belief systems. It happened with Christianity. It can happen with Islam, but not by passivity.

Why should we insist on any type of tolerance at all? Tolerance or intolerance should be a measure of what a society or an individual are willing to live and deal with or not. Why must it become an automatic condition of acceptance?

The attempt by Islamists to build a monument to their perfidy at the site of their Western-most victory should be treated with neither tolerance nor respect. It should be met with mockery, as should the notion that we in the U.S. have ANYTHING to learn about Religious tolerance from Islam.

Since posters here have compared the GZM to the Confederate flag, it’s interesting to note that Islam condones slavery. Saudi Arabia did not outlaw slavery until the 1960s and some people think there are still slaves there. During the first Gulf War, U.S. male service members were frequently offered large sums of money for their female comrades—in Saudi Arabia. Mauritania, another majority Muslim country only recently outlawed slavery under strong international pressure. However, there is evidence that slavery still exists there. Google anti-slavery groups to find out more.

U.S. male service members were frequently offered large sums of money for their female comrades—in Saudi Arabia.

I can personally vouch for this. It happened in Dharan outside the Khobar Towers, yes, those Khobar Towers.

I took a POV-type vehicle downtown one evening because we had heard there was a Wendy's. Not only was there a Wendy's, but a Popeye's and a Pizza Hut. We went to the Pizza Hut and, after sitting in the family section of course (can't take women in with the men because, you know, they're so tolerant). I got up to go to the bathroom and two rather seedy looking Saudis came up and offered me 20k each for the two blond air force women I was with. I laughed it off and walked away, but never saw even a hint of a smile on their faces.

After dinner as we were leaving, one of them slipped me a business card and made the offer again...that I should call him if I changed my mind.

Someone pointed out this morning on one of the talk shows that tolerance is something that the majority does, and so what the minority does in that capacity is really irrelevant. But it is relevant to look at what a minority in one situation does when in a majority in another. And, from that point of view, Islam is extraordinarily intolerant.

Part of that intolerance seems to be a result of the basic structure of the religion. The world is separated into two parts - where Islam rules (Dar al-Islam), and where Islam doesn't rule yet (Dar al-Harb). While in a majority (i.e. where Islam rules - Dar al-Islam), there is little division between church and state, as we have come to expect. And, the religion calls for a two tier system, with one standard for Muslims, and another (dhimmi) for Jews and Christians (and a still lower one for those not "People of the book" - i.e. polytheists or idolaters, e.g. Muslim men can marry Christians or Jews, but not polytheists).

This double standard, great intolerance while in the majority, but demands for tolerance when in the minority, is one reason that these calls for tolerance by Muslims here lack moral force.

If the opposite of tolerance were intolerance than tolerance might be a high virtue. But the opposite of tolerance is discrimination, without which life becomes a very dangerous proposition very quickly.

Doesn't insisting on tolerance all around mean the same thing as not tolerating intolerance? Please elaborate on how this "insist on tolerance all around" thing works, and please do so in terms that an unevolved mind can grasp, for I am but a simple caveman and these modern ways confuse and frighten me.

There is a limit to all freedoms, including the first amendment recognized freedoms. We do not allow libel or slander. We do not allow breech of copyright.

We do not allow religions to maintain complete freedom, either. Religions are not allowed to practice human sacrifice.

Likewise, we need not allow the people we are at war with to operate in our borders. It's not a matter of NYC or ground zero.

If we allow enemies to build churches in our country that are little more than propaganda/recruiting sites or training centers for those that would kill us and destroy our civilization, then our Constitution will have become a suicide pact.

How do you "insist" on tolerance all around? That is just a stupid statement, and leads to awful "human rights" codes like the ones that have proliferated in Canada. Under the 1st Amendment, Muslims are free to have a pretty intolerant religion, as long as they don't cross certain bright lines into criminality (actually they cross those lines all the time too, but even there a fear of being accused of Racism, Islamophobia or Profiling buys them extra-sensitive treatment from law enforcement).

At any rate, if Muslims or whole mosques full of Muslims want to be a bunch of anti-western, anti-Semitic, anti-women and anti-guy arseholes, that is their right on under the First Amendment (and it might get them tenure as history professors at Ivy League schools). Actually, it's everybody's right - and let's face it, if you have any strong beliefs at all, then somewhere, someone considers you to be an arsehole.

But all that said, I have EVERY right to meet their intolerance with equal or greater intolerance. And if they are going to be a bunch of assholes towards me and my culture, then I have a right to be a dick to them (again, as long as I avoid actual criminality). I can protest their "community center", I can draw pictures of Mohammad with a pink taco for a mouth, whatever.

And if you meet Muslim intolerance with a passive attitude, if you let their activists walk all over you, if you show them the respect they demand while they show you none, then you are just a p*ssy.

TMink>>>Tolerance is a good trait. It is completely ineffective against aggression. Given aggression, a swift and accurate punch in the nose helps much more than tolerance.<<<

Bingo. You've caused me to wonder if this mosque imbroglio isn't a very important constitional red flag to come up relating to Islam.

An extremely clear line must be drawn with regard to Sharia creep in this country. And all cases of female genital mutilation, attempts to segregate school settings, railings against pictures of Mohammed, must be dealt with swiftly and terribly.

On Blogging Heads, Reza Aslan, who is of Iranian extraction, told of Angeleno Iranians' attempts to persuade young Iranians to migrate here, using some of the decadence here as bait. Not that I approve of that tactic, but it does illustrate that not all Muslims are pro Shariafying America. (But of course we already know that.) Maybe I'll make a clip of it.

Ironclad- thanks for the link to Arabnews.com the article and some of the comments reveal an intolerance of the Muslim mind held by some, including the too common one reported from the Muslim living in America who reduces modernization to drugs and sex while ignoring the obsession with sex implicit in all the rules of Sharia Law.

The Imam behind the mosque is a bad guy and it will become clearer in time.

It is already quite clear that he is a firm supporter of Hamas and other terrorist groups much like AlphaLiberal and Cedarford. They are all birds of a feather who would like to kill all the Jews together.

The notion of "insist[ing] on tolerance all around" also presents another problem. I call it the "paradox of interference."

Briefly, the premise is that "people shouldn't interfere in others' lives." ("To each his own", "live and let live", "private lives"--these are other phrasings.) As long as there's unanimity on that point, everything's fine. But what happens when someone joins who believes that people should interfere in others' lives--may, in fact, be obligated to?

That view is incompatible with the rest of the group, but what do you do? If you allow it by following your own rule, then you let the new member dominate. If you attempt to make the new member follow the rule, then you break it yourself because you're now interfering in their lives. In either case, it's no longer a question of rule-following; it's a question of power and who has the strongest will.

That's the problem with the Rodney King approach: sometimes we simply can't all get along because real conflicts exist that can't be "solved" by tolerance.

I also note that fans of "tolerance! beautiful tolerance!" can draw inspiration from the Sterling Hall bombing and apply it to the Cordoba Mosque.

Karleton Armstrong, the bomb builder and ringleader, was caught, convicted, spent 7 years in jail - then opened a food cart called "loose juice" at Library Mall on Madison Campus. 4 blocks from his bomb site.

Liberals showing true tolerance! Unlike the Imam who had nothing to do with 9/11, Karleton was an actual terrorist.How much nobler and human is the Left!!!I imagine a terrorist on campus selling bean sprout sandwiches did not escape notice altogether..or when he was joined by his convicted brother to start up a restaurant in Madison called "The Radical Rye".I imagine all the standard Leftist talking points came out that they practice regularly save when demonizing their opponents as not to be accorded tolerance because the to-be-demonized have impure motives rooted in racism, classism, bigotry, and phobias.

All Saul Alinsky is, for his recent fame, is just another radical jew echoing the 1st masters of this double game, the Jewish Bolsheviks.

But for the terror brothers, I'm sure the message when theSterling Hall bomber-brothers came back to set up shop that was sent was: "Dissent is patriotic, the US and the Vietnam War is to blame, not the brothers." "Nixon is really at fault." "What about all the innocent N Vietnamese killed??" "We show our moral superiority and Love of Constitutional free speech and free expression by welcoming and above all TOLERATING the convicted bombers back on campus!!"

In 2005 the Ontario government received a consultant's recommendation that Sharia tribunals for civil actions like divorces etc. be made available to Muslim Ontarians on a voluntary basis. Like Christians and Jews, they would have the option to solve their disputes in this way with the caveat that all proceedings would be governed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The move was supported by the conservative Canadian Islamic Congress and the predictable polarized hue and cry followed throughout the land. It was eventually rejected (and took the established Jewish and Christian tribunals with it) largely on the strength of two loud and influential voices: the Muslim Canadian Congress and the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, two moderate Islamic voices that when given the full freedom of choice preferred to embrace the laws and the processes of the land rather than Sharia.

The lesson for America? Stop punching your moderate Muslims in the face long enough so they can actually say something. When you give reasonable people space and respect and unconditional freedom they're not going to want to give any of that freedom or the ideals that support it back.

Very good 8:25AM post by Clyde on how absolutely stupid "tolerance" is pushed as some absolute ideal in the absence of other factors and without any expectation that those who are being "tolerated" are expected to show toleration in return.The Europeans got brainless about celebrating tolerance and multi-culti of people and things that were an ancient, persistant threat to their existance and culture - now they reap the whirlwind.

It the USA, it is at the same brainless level with the Left and Progressive Jews. Plus many clueless Libertarians who are out saying the more radical Somalis we let in, the better, because true FREEDOM!!!!!! means no Borders..

All tolerance has to be given by the only ones with the power to give it - the evil Christian white male oppressors.The noble oppressed - Muslims, radical Jews, blacks, gays - are under no obligation to show tolerance as powerless classes to the privileged class. Their intolerance cannot really be called intolerance...since it is not in their power as a small powerless minority to give tolerance...even billionaire Muslims, the gay Mafia that calls much of how the entertainment industry does, Jewish power brokers, and black Congresswomen for Life in majority black districts.(Alinsky - "Always discover their most cherished ideals, then use their ideals against them as a weapon.")Tolerance. Of anything! Anyone!Admitting refugees because "America is all about our bottomless generosity and opening our hearts".Regulating more and more things for safety, but really for more and more control of the goyim masses.More enemy rights.Free speech for enemy subversion of US culture and institutions. (You have to tolerate radical jihadi websites aimed at Americans if YOU LOVE THE CONSTITUTION!)

The way in which Ann writes about "tolerance all around" is fatuous and inane. Tolerance is meaningless if it is posed as a universalist stance.

In our civic life, we do not "tolerate" those who break laws, nor do we tolerate those who fail to meet their responsibilities to others. We fail wayward students, imprison criminals, divorce incompatible spouses, etc., etc. Generally, we do not extend tolerance to the violent.

The issue then is to whom should we extend tolerance? Religions get a lot of tolerance, but an important aspect of that tolerance is that they don't harm others or intrude into the political realm.

Islam fails miserably on both counts. The question of whether Islam has earned or deserves the tolerance we extend to less malignant religions is a very live question for most Americans.

The matter of the funding of this facility is given little attention. A few things I believe to be true:

1. They do not have plans and specifications for the proposed building.2. Without #1 they have no idea what the real cost of construction will be.3. They have no current funding for the facility.4. Sharia prohibits borrowed money5. I suspect that the longer this uproar continues the closer the "developers" will be to getting a free mosque somewhere in Manhattan courtesy of the guilty inhabitants who will feel compelled to make something happen that would not have happened otherwise.6. This is what happens in the final days of a decadent and failing society.

Sorry, no. I'm on Lyssa's side here: shouting tom makes us all look dumb with his boring rant. And there's plenty of people here taking on AL, surely there's room for a little division of labor, isn't there?

Dude, you're way behind on that meme. Alpha was flogging that one yesterday!

So it doesn't bother you that a Saudi Prince with financial ties to the mastermind of the Cordoba mosque, owns much of Fox? The same prince who offered that money to Giuliani after 9/11 who heroically turned it down? Tell me that ain't rich, c'mon. Hilarious.

" Deep-pocketed benefactors who have supported the groups in the past include the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal's Kingdom Foundation, the government of Qatar and the World Economic Forum. But some of the foundations have already backed away from the mosque, which is to be called Cordoba House.

The driving forces behind the project, Feisal Abdul Rauf -- a usually media-savvy imam -- and his wife, Daisy Khan, have been tight-lipped on financing. They have said in brief statements that fund-raising has not started, donors have not been identified and that the Kingdom Foundation has no involvement."')

MIM: This from the St. Petersburg Times:Saudi telethon raises $92-million

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia -- A Saudi telethon raised more than $92-million for the Palestinians by late Friday.

Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, a billionaire investor, donated $27-million to the government-organized fundraiser. In October, he presented $10-million to a fund for Sept. 11 victims, but New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani refused the money after Alwaleed urged the United States to re-examine its Mideast policies.

In a statement Friday, Alwaleed said half his telethon pledge would help rebuild Palestinian infrastructure destroyed by Israeli forces, while the rest would be donated in the form of goods, including 100 vehicles and clothing.

The telethon, broadcast live by local and Saudi-owned satellite channels and expected to continue today, was ordered by King Fahd to help relatives of Palestinian "martyrs" -- a term that has been used by the Palestinians to include suicide bombers.

The Saudi government insisted the term referred not to suicide bombers but to "Palestinians who are victimized by Israeli terror and violence."

Tsk tsk. Shame on you Fox news. And shame on your Sarah Palin for accepting a paycheck from terrorist sympathizers.

Chef Mojo: You are quite right. Interest is the issue. There are lots of ways around it and banks are aware of how to do Sharia compliant lending. There must, however, be some way to pay the money back.

Highly unlikely that Al Waleed would stroke a check for this mosque. His check after 9-11 was a fraction of what this facility would cost.

Trooper York - "It is already quite clear that he is a firm supporter of Hamas and other terrorist groups much like AlphaLiberal and Cedarford. They are all birds of a feather who would like to kill all the Jews together."

Thanks for sharing the kind of site you inhabit when you're not worshiping at your Pat The Jews Control D.C. Buchanan shrine, GasRage.

Never been to that site before, but did you have an opinion on Fox's largest shareholder funding terrorists, or not? Or are we supposed to all just be "tolerant" of terrorist funders? I can get you a different cite if you need it. Just let me know.

Thought experiment: If Timothy McVeigh's family & friends proposed to build a "Healing and Understanding Center" 2 blocks from the Oklahoma City bombing, would the supporters of the Ground Zero Mosque support it? Those aforementioned family & friends might have the best intentions in the world but that doesn't lessen one iota their intentions from being completely misguided.

Yet in the case of the mosque, we're constantly being told that anyone who disagrees with it, exactly as planned, is a Hater/Bigot/Racist/Islamaphobe. I wonder if those so casually making such charges have ever looked in the mirror and seen their own lack of tolerance and compassion?

Garage: Don't use your Citi card since the evil AlWaleed owns a huge chunk of that bank. And don't stay at Four Seasons Hotels (not that you would)or Fairmont Hotels either, because he owns a big piece of that.

I doubt he would stroke a check for this mosque. He would see that as a losing proposition. Not so much Fox and Citi and Four Seasons and Fairmont.

All Muslims are the same. There are no extremists or moderates, just Muslims. And they should all be treated as part of the same uniform, theologically homogenized mass. We will not bother appealing to some of them or dealing with any one of them in a way that al Qaeda cannot be appealed to or dealt with.

In that sense, they are just like Republicans!

Are y'all with me?

--End Satire--

God save us all from your ignorant attempts to turn this into another Europe. I mean, I know I should be really glad that Newt and Sarah found a way to intensify their fortunes by abandoning the tolerance that kept American Muslims from becoming as radicalized as they have become in the nationalist states of Europe, but, aww what the hell: Go piss off.

You know, it's going to be a hell of a shame if we lose Hitchens to cancer. I know you guys love him, and why not? He's a good writer and an astute critic. In this sense, he's able to combine two traits that Republicans can only do one-at-a-time. You can own or claim him instead of envy him, which is nice.

Dealing with Islam from a Western perspective is not simple, and this challenge may spell the death of the Republicans as a party grounded in anything but the narrow plank of blind nationalism. This works in the right-wing parties of Europe to some degree. But in the explicitly secular and religiously pluralistic nation of America the right will simply crumble for lack of any other issues that can be attached to something so flimsy.

Hitchens, however, you like. He criticizes religions and cultures, including Islam, without treating them in an ignorant and threatening way. And this is to everyone's benefit. Most touchy or complicated social subjects need to be treated precisely so. But that's why he's not a rightist. He understands the difference between criticisms and threats. Your side of course, does not.

You go on the rampage and see how Muslim attitudes in America start to reflect those in Europe. Keep up your war against all of them, in the name of "civilizing" them. I guess that's not bigoted in your book, just the same excuse that your ancestors used to "civilize" the native Americans, and to "civilize" the colonies they carved out of Africa, and to enslave them. All in the name of civilizing.

Because they "expected better of them", like Fen does.

Bigot.

Not that it matters except in any sense that you're at war with history and will lose this one. Your ignorance and the judgment of history is and will always continue to be greater than the power of any one word.

In an earlier century, Fen would have argued in favor of converting native Americans. Because, you know, he "expects better of them".

Is this what Ann Coulter had in mind with the comment about invading their countries, killing their leaders and converting them to Christianity?

Fen's mask is betrayed by everyone else who speaks for what he represents. They pick the issue of the day, he pounces. He's about the the most devoted grunt in the armchair punditry. It doesn't matter what the battle is, just get Sean and Rush and Ann on it, and he's there. He'll follow them into the depths of hell, if need be.

Of course, I sort of imagine that's where he'd be more comfortable residing anyway.

Are you imagining watching television shows with me again or something?

Or have you upgraded me to the kind of guy you'd let take you out to the movies?

When you move into my place, will you have any wealth to bring into the partnership? Or will you just mooch off me the way you currently do your parents?

It must be lonely being you, Fen.

Fen: Newest recruit in the Armchair Punditry. He fights for the right to "sivilize" the Muslims from the comfort of his parents' basement. And then he goes back to playing with his GI Joes before sucking his thumb and dreaming of all the guys on the internets he'd like to date.

But at least he stopped fantasizing about us watching movies and television and going out on dates with each other, AC! You gotta admit, that's progress for a burgeoning young and closeted internet stalker like Fen.

I'm proud of him for that.

As for expecting better of the Muslims, I'll let history judge that - as it has the colonizers of Africa, the expansionists of the Indian Wars, etc., etc., ad infinitum ad nauseam.

You go on the rampage and see how Muslim attitudes in America start to reflect those in Europe. Keep up your war against all of them, in the name of "civilizing" them. I guess that's not bigoted in your book, just the same excuse that your ancestors used to "civilize" the native Americans, and to "civilize" the colonies they carved out of Africa, and to enslave them. All in the name of civilizing.

We go on a rampage? What ramage are you talking about? Are there wars going on in the states that I'm not aware of? Are Muslims being driven into reservations or are we trading trinkets to muslims in exchange for their land? And civilizing Muslims? Are Muslims Huck Finn? What the hell are you talking about?Is it your assertion that unless we accede to every demand that a "moderate" muslim makes that he will turn into an extremist muslim who will try to kill us? Wow ,talk about intolerance. That moderate muslim sure has a short fuse. But luckily it's all our faultWhat about this other concept?The founder of Wahabism came to america, and after going to a church social rejected America as being the place of the devil. Beacause people in the church dance were dancing to Baby It's Cold Outside. For someone with that mentality it doesn't take an awful lot to convince him of our awfulness. Is that a provocation though? If your idea of a moderate muslim is that he is one slight away from becoming a terrorist, then he aint that moderate is he? And civilizing them is somehow a bad thing? The uncivilized ones seem to have no qualms about mass murdering our population without provocation. You don't think that's a trait worth civilizing? Society has a right to protect itself from those that seek to commit mass murder on it. Sorry if you find that to be some provincial prejudice on our part.

Oh, wait, did you think that the guy with the 7% stake was the "largest shareholder"? Hahahaha! You're a fucking moron, GasRage.

You keeping shining Saudi terrorist cocks, and I'll keep defending the Heartland. Hey, it's still a free country AC245, you can side with Holocaust denying, America was to blame for 9/11 beheaders all you want. Mr Only 7%.

A bunch people were murdered today in Somalia by some, how shall I put this, Islamists. I would expect they were inflamed by the protests against the location of the GZ mosque. What other possible reason could there be? Ritmo? Anybody?

All the same arguments used to perpetuate sundry atrocities throughout history, jr.

But at least you're playing. Most of these Irrelephants just don't care a jot for the long view.

The problem with thinking that you can "sivilize" the Moslems the same way you, er, well, to which group are you attempting to compare them, exactly? To which group of people that we conquered, either territorially or politically, do you want to compare them?

I suggest you think long and hard about that one before answering. It won't be easy to flatter yourself here.

The problem with looking at Moslems in the same way is that they are a huge global demographic, part of a religious heritage spanning more than a millenium, a continuum of the Judeo-Christian heritage and a civilization that has at times surpassed ours in its successes. I know you think we're better than them now, but their history is no less important to them than yours or mine is to you or me and they will have no compunction of leaning back against that when push comes to shove.

If you want to win an ideological struggle with them, the only way to do it is with ideological arguments that are no less complicated than those which Hitchens would employ. In the absence of that, enjoy your war of civilizations. Just remind yourself of what's at stake if you foul up.

Also Ritmo,You don't think that the extremists are attempting to "civilize" the moderate muslims in their midst? What about the Taliban not allowing music, forcing men to wear beards or face having their heads chopped off.

We talk about moderate muslims versus extremist muslims and suggest that it is bigoted to call muslims extremists. Yet, to you its presumptuos to suggest we should "civilize" the extremists. Yet, if someone doesn't civilize extremists doesn't that mean that the extremists will civilize the moderates? Through violence? It's a lot easier to get people to agree on a principle if you threaten to kill them if they don't. To you though, we should assume all muslims are in fact moderate. But apparently even worse, standing up to extremist muslims is the equivalent of Manifest Destiny.

A bunch people were murdered today in Somalia by some, how shall I put this, Islamists. I would expect they were inflamed by the protests against the location of the GZ mosque. What other possible reason could there be? Ritmo? Anybody?

Clearly then the remedy is to do a better job of teaching them the lessons that only we have been chosen by God to teach them, right Michael?

Michael, I nominate you as the foreign emissary for changing the minds of billions. Obviously sparking an internal reform of another civilization is not to be preferred over imposing change on them. And we're just the ones to do it. Everyone else has so far failed. But they're just not getting the message.

How many examples do you have of changing a civilization from the outside, Michael? You want to occupy every Moslem country until Islam has been reformed by the prophet America? I don't think so.

You don't think that the extremists are attempting to "civilize" the moderate muslims in their midst? What about the Taliban not allowing music, forcing men to wear beards or face having their heads chopped off.

So what? The lunar landscape we call Afghanistan is now suddenly the hinge of civilization? WTF?

Ritmo: "How many examples do you have of changing a civilization from the outside, Michael?"

I'll give you one, Ritmo. Japan. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki the Japanese became less bellicose. Overnight. The adoption of democracy, a concept decidedly not in their DNA, took hold fairly soon thereafter. Since WWII the Japanese have been on pretty good behavior. Those holdouts within Japanese society were brought into line by their fellow citizens.

I frankly don't give a shit about Muslims and Islam and find the conversation about the mosque pretty boring, especially the ongoing sophomoric arguments from the "tolerance" troop, generally leftists who could care less about religion. Especially Christianity. They appear amused by having solidarity with Muslims who wear cool Palestinian scarfs. In general I find Islam incoherent and its adherents generally incapable of the slightest criticism. Not my cup of tea. They mostly blow each other up anyway.

'Oh, wait, did you think that the guy with the 7% stake was the "largest shareholder"? Hahahaha! You're a fucking moron, GasRage.'

You keeping shining Saudi terrorist cocks, and I'll keep defending the Heartland. Hey, it's still a free country AC245, you can side with Holocaust denying, America was to blame for 9/11 beheaders all you want. Mr Only 7%.

But apparently even worse, standing up to extremist muslims is the equivalent of Manifest Destiny.

I have no problem standing up to extremist Muslims and fail to see how Newt and Palin's hobby horse of the "Ground Zero" Mosque is an example of extremist Islam.

Maybe you guys are right and maybe once the mosque goes up in that location bin Laden will be the keynote speaker at its ribbon-cutting ceremony. But I fail to see how you've made that case.

And if your worst criticism of the backers' intentions is that it's funded by one of the same guys with 7% ownership in one of the biggest media corporations in the world, and he just happens to be a bad guy in one of those instances but not when he's allowing free speech for the rabid American right, then the liberals are right to allege that you've lost all coherence on this one.

Just waiting for you to denounce terrorist funding business interests inside News Corp, and Fox News, the most watched cable news outlet, and part of one of the largest media conglomerates in the world. Alwaleed holds telethons for suicide bombers. That's what you're defending. Suicide Bombers.

I didn't think it would be this fucking hard to denounce AC245, but it appears it is for you. Will this finally be the post you will denounce suicide bombers to the Althouse Community, or, can I ask you if you even denounce terrorism at all?

I'll give you one, Ritmo. Japan. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki the Japanese became less bellicose. Overnight.

1945 Japan. One nation. Less than a tenth of the population of Muslims in 2010. One war. Not proselytizing or making universalist claims and predominantly militaristic in its aims.

Also, not a witness to a nuclear weapons technology far more advanced for its day compared to what's available to terrorists now.

Learn your history, Michael.

The adoption of democracy, a concept decidedly not in their DNA, took hold fairly soon thereafter. Since WWII the Japanese have been on pretty good behavior. Those holdouts within Japanese society were brought into line by their fellow citizens.

See all of the above, Michael. You could occupy Japan. Also, it wasn't cheap.

How do you make the analogy of "occupying" Islam?

You can't and you won't. So you borrow the bellicosity we adopted for ourselves and re-directed at "the Japs" and pretend that you can respond in like manner to the world's Muslims.

You will incinerate before that works its way to what you believe to be its logical conclusion.

I frankly don't give a shit about Muslims and Islam and find the conversation about the mosque pretty boring, especially the ongoing sophomoric arguments from the "tolerance" troop, generally leftists who could care less about religion. Especially Christianity. They appear amused by having solidarity with Muslims who wear cool Palestinian scarfs. In general I find Islam incoherent and its adherents generally incapable of the slightest criticism. Not my cup of tea. They mostly blow each other up anyway.

Oh good, then! Wonderful! I found the phoney issue of the mosque pretty lowbrow myself.

But then, I knew it was only for certain people's consumption.

Apparently, it's found its way into the right cups of tea. Right here.

Ritmo: You asked for an example and I gave you an example. Now you change the question because you dont like the answer. In the future think about the number of answers that you don't like could be quickly posited by a sentient human being. Don't waste my time. And I would suggest trying to stay sober as the night goes on. Very tiresome tirades.

Just waiting for you to denounce terrorist funding business interests inside News Corp, and Fox News, the most watched cable news outlet, and part of one of the largest media conglomerates in the world. Alwaleed holds telethons for suicide bombers. That's what you're defending. Suicide Bombers.

Er, no, GasRage, you were going to provide cites to support your bizarre claims, since everything you've offered so far has been debunked and discredited.

If you want to keep shrieking incoherently instead of providing those cites you promised, knock yourself out.

The answer doesn't apply to the current situation, Michael. If you don't like that, take your grievances up with Hirohito or the world's billion+ Moslems. I didn't make these things happen. I didn't make those realities exist. You posed the analogy and resent that its one-tenth the challenge that you face and far less geographically confined.

I suppose reality, to you, is a tirade. Must be tiresome having to deal with anyone referencing it.

Although there are certain others who prefer action to words and also practice teetotaling. But they're not your cup of tea either.

Get used to them, Michael. Get used to them. You're a lot more like them than you know.

Ritmo wrote:Clearly then the remedy is to do a better job of teaching them the lessons that only we have been chosen by God to teach them, right Michael?

Michael, I nominate you as the foreign emissary for changing the minds of billions. Obviously sparking an internal reform of another civilization is not to be preferred over imposing change on them. And we're just the ones to do it. Everyone else has so far failed. But they're just not getting the message.

How do YOU propose changing a radical muslims mind when his god says it's honorable to act like a radical terrorist? What words can you offer that will override the word of Allah?

I propose making sure moderates maintain and grow their sympathy for us over their sympathy for him.

We do this primarily with acts, not with words. If a dialogue develops among enough of them due to our acts, that's a good thing. I want them to feel secure enough to have that dialogue and to cajole the radical with it.

That dialogue between Muslims is the only thing that will have the effect of reining in the extremists - ideologically speaking. Harsh words from the West or any other outsider will be treated in a predictable way. With violence.

Some of you like that.

Others think that if it's the only trick in our bag, we're wasting our time. My aims go beyond jerking off American militants here so that they can fight militants there. That will always be an option. There will always be noble thugs willing to engage in the glory of fighting each other. But if you rely on that as the only option you are not doing enough.

Ritmo wrote:So what? The lunar landscape we call Afghanistan is now suddenly the hinge of civilization? WTF?

We now live in a world where radical muslims can train in Afghanistan, then fly a plane to the US then setup shop in the US and then target us here. So yes, Afghanistan can be a hinge. 9/11 was radical muslims infiltrating our society, then hijacking planes to target our cities and symbols of our power. I don't think you can stand up to a radical muslim, since you are so intent on calling anyone who suggests that some muslims are pretty extreme as a bigot. You suggest that trying to weed out the moderates from those trying to kill us is "civilizing them". No, it's protecting society from extremists intent on killing us. The fact that you consider such an impulse as bigoted on our part, show that your tolerance cannot even allow the thought that there are some extremist muslims.But lets take your ward for it, and agree that you would stand up to extremist muslims. Can we "civilize" those extremist muslims? Here's the big problem with Islam being a religion of peace. The moderates are not reigning in the extremists, but the extremists are reigning in the moderates. If we, as a society have to protect ourselves, because Islam can't control it's crazies, then I'm sorry but that is not bigotry on our part, but self preservation.

I know you will say it's only 155 million raised to terrorist martyrs, or that Alwaleed only gave 27 million, or that he is only the 2nd largest shareholder at News Corp, etc etc etc. Odd isn't it, that the real hidden Muslim menace in America is the worlds 6th richest man.

Ritmo wrote:Others think that if it's the only trick in our bag, we're wasting our time. My aims go beyond jerking off American militants here so that they can fight militants there. That will always be an option. There will always be noble thugs willing to engage in the glory of fighting each other. But if you rely on that as the only option you are not doing enough.

Except when we went to Iraq or Afghanistan we were not simply fighting them. We were building schools and infrastructure .And fighting extremists who were trying to prevent Iraqis from voting for example. So it wasn't the only option offered in our "military solution". Similarly, on the home front, the only "civilizing" I hear is asking for common courtesy to not build a mosque on the WTC grounds. NO muslim is being told they can't pray. So in both cases, you are simply arguing straw men.And I notice that only America has to abide by these rules to liberals. But going by your logic, suppose we determine that there are extremist muslims in our midst. Are we allowed to "civilize" them? Or is that cultural chauvanism?

You can try to "civilize" them, but it won't be on your terms alone. It's their religious culture that needs to confront itself, after all. Not yours.

As for asking them not to exercise their constitutional rights when it offends us, that might sound like a small price to pay for you. Maybe it is. If that's the case, then the right should have gone about their anti-mosque jihad a little more quietly, rather than creating an intentionally demagogued political battle over it. Because this way, nothing of the sort will happen. You've turned this tempest in a teapot into something much better and that has a way of recruiting constitutional rights advocates and civil libertarians into a battle much bigger than what was called for.

Construction will proceed, Muslims and right-wing Americans will be unnecessarily offended, and constitutional rights and 9/11 victims turned into a political football. If that's what you wanted, congratulate yourself. Myself, I would feel cheapened beyond belief. But then again, I know this jihad wasn't fought for my benefit. It was fought for Sarah Palin's and Newt Gingrich's benefit. I hope they got something out of it.

Ritmo wrote:What does containing Afghanistan and preventing it from becoming a viable terror base for launching attacks against the U.S. have to do with imposing Japanese-style occupation on it, jr?

Are you saying containing Afghanistan is ok, but imposing a Japanese style occupation is not? Please define the mechanism of containment that is proper or improper? Are you suggesting that we are imposing a Japanese-style occupation in Afghansitan now? Or more importantly, are we engaging in rounding up Muslims and throwing them in concentration camps like we did the Japanese?Is your argument that if you are against a mosque being built in a specific location and have questions about those building the mosque that you are also for throwing all muslims in concentration camps?